original inhabitants of ancient England

Cyrus Shahmiri wrote: I'm not denying, I'm criticizing; there's a difference.  Denying implies that I know you are right and am refusing to believe what you are saying.  Criticizing implies that I am reading your argument with an open-mind and then evaluating it and pointing out areas which are deficient or lacking.  I have only pointed out areas which to me don't make any sense or which have a better or at times easier explanation.  Please stop responding to my posts with claims of denial and/or nationalism they only belittle your argument; you are better than that.  If you truly believe that you are right and have evidence to back you up I will have to accept it, if you come to the proverbial table with flimsy arguments that have their basis in very little proof you should expect people to question and criticize your arguments. Therefore the problem is your method of criticism, in fact you are not criticizing my argument when for example you don't say for these reasons Amleth was not similar to Kei Chosro but say there were also some similarities between the story of Amleth and some Greco-Roman stories,

Maybe you should reread what I wrote, when I was criticizing your argument.  What I pointed out by saying that Hamlet and Kei Chosro could come from a Greco-Roman tradition is that your source states this.  By doing this I am criticizing how you make your argument.  I have also criticized your argument by asking you to prove that Saxo read Firdausi.  If Saxo actually did read Firdausi it shouldn't be that hard to prove.  I also asked you if there is any translation of Firdausi into Latin or any contemporary vernacular language by the time Saxo died in 1208.  The whole basis of your argument was that Saxo was familiar with Firdausi's story, this is a line of reasoning that needs to be proven in order for your claim to be true.  

maybe you think if you expand my argument then you will be able to conclude that these stories have all proto-Indo-European origins but the important point is the amount and type of the similarity. It is not difficult to find out that these similarities were from a common origin or appeared later because of a cultural influence.

If it's not that hard then why have you failed to answer my request for proof that these stories appeared because of cultural influences from Scythians?  I have never tried to expand your argument I just pointed out similarities between the myths that you suggested and myths from other cultures.  I have pointed out common origins to myths that you have suggested (Ymir/Yima).  I want to point out that these common origins came from sources that you provided or that a simple google search turns up.

About another story, as you read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles Achilles was originally the greatest warrior of Homer's Iliad, not a mythical hero who fights against the dragon. Some centuries later, Statius probably reads about Spandiyard (Esfandiyar) or Sigurd (Siegfried) and thinks it is not bad that our greatest warrior to be also invulnerable, but we see his invulnerability can't fit in the Iliad where Homer mentions Achilles being wounded: in Book 21.

Why do you bring up Achilles?  What does he have to do with this discussion?  As I pointed out Epic poetry is formulaic so of course great warriors in that poetry are going to have some sort of extraordinary power/prowess/trait.  Often time these extraordinary traits/powers/prowess are used to enhance the heroic nature of a character; it makes for a better story and often times a more dramatic demise.  If Sigurd and Spandiyard are so invulnerable why do they die?  What's your point about Statius starting the invulnerability part of the Achilles story?  If all three are killed then how invulnerable were they really?  Do you have any proof for you claim that Statius in the first century AD "probably" read about Spandiyard or Sigurd (who wasn't supposed to have lived for another few centuries according to the legends surrounding him)?  Don't get defensive when somebody points out that your research or understanding of a story is lacking.  A simple way to actually avoid my criticisms would be to not just take one part from a source and neglect another part which would suggest a different reason for an occurrence; a prime example would be your source for the Hamlet story.  Anybody can see that the story, according to your source, could have also come from a Latin story written by Livy.  I might also add that Saxo, as a bishop trained in Latin, would be more likely to know this story than one that is written in an Iranic language.